Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide safety hints (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false). Description adds cost per call ($0.02 USDC), which is a useful behavioral trait not in annotations. However, it doesn't explain side effects or auth needs. With annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loads purpose, then features, then cost. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool, annotations provide safety profile, and schema specifies required parameter. Description covers purpose, output categories, and cost. Missing usage guidelines, but overall complete enough for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has one required parameter 'text' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or its format, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb 'sentiment analysis' and resource, with output categories (positive/negative/neutral) and additional features (emotions, keywords). Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like content-safety or classify-insurance. Lacks context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.